:::::: The Dismantlement of the Netherlands Antilles: How Autonomy is More Viable than Independence Cameron Wathey Cameron Wathey is from the 37 square mile half-Dutch, half-French island of St. Maarten/St. Martin. His family roots are established on the Dutch side of the island, which is technically considered an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. He is currently studying Cinema Studies, English, and History, with a specific focus on Caribbean History. He is also a student leader on campus, serving as the Vice-President Internal & Services for the University of Toronto Students’ Union. Cameron has a keen interest in the history and culture of the Caribbean, the diaspora, and politics of the region. On October 10th, 2010, the Netherlands Antilles was dismantled. The islands have decided to part ways with Curacao and St. Maarten as countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands while Bonaire, St. Eustatius, and Saba have become public authorities, the equivalence of municipalities in the Netherlands. The debates over the years pertaining to the viability of the Netherlands Antilles have ended with the Dutch Caribbean achieving their goal. Yet, these islands are not independent territories. They still remain apart of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This essay addresses the political history that has led to the recent dismantlement of the Netherlands Antilles in which the islands continue to be autonomous partners within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Due to the recent developments in the dismantlement, however, scholarly work has not been written on the status of the decolonization process as of yet. Therefore, this essay presents the decolonization process up to the final plunge in 2010. Attention will be focused on the context in which the Netherlands Antilles was created, and the key events that have occurred, with the results of 2004 referendum as the culminating event. The idea of autonomy explains why the Dutch territories fought for dissolution yet wanted to remain ‘partners’ with the Netherland as opposed to independent countries. For several islands in the Caribbean, the topic of independence does not concern them. A relatively large proportion of non-sovereign islands can still be found in the Caribbean with most being content with the present status of their country. The claim to the acceptance of their relationship with a ‘mother country’ is mainly due to the evident benefits that are attached with the status of non-sovereignty. Gert Oostindie claims in his article, Dependence 142 CAMERON WATHEY| THE DISMANTLEMENT OF NETHERLANDS ANTILLES and Autonomy in Sub-National Island Jurisdictions: The Case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, that between the collections of islands in the Caribbean, there is a positive correlation between non- sovereignty and standards of living.1 According to his findings, Oostindie notes that sovereignty can be a drawback to the economic development.2 He notes that the three major countries in the region, Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic are all sovereign states. In terms of their economic development Haiti is currently the poorest country in the Caribbean with the Dominican Republic tailing right behind.3 As for the case of the ten richest islands in the Caribbean, nine of them are non-sovereign.4 Paul Sutton lists in his article Non- Independent Territories and Small States: Retrospect and Prospect, that non-sovereign territories in the Caribbean also have the advantages of free trade with the metropolis, grants and social welfare assistance, access to foreign capital and labour markets, special tax concessions, aid for infrastructure and communications, a working health care system, high levels of school administration, and relatively low levels of crime compared to their independent counterparts.5 Other than the advantages of aid and security by the metropolis, the level of democracy and standards of governance is considerably higher in non-sovereign islands too. The non- independent islands still attain autonomy, yet standards of governance are defined and enforced by the metropolis.6 For all the reasons listed, politicians on non-sovereign islands aspire to maintain their partnership with the metropolis, while at the same time securing maximum autonomy. Godfrey Baldacchino notes that non-sovereign territories, or what he refers to as a ‘sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJ)’, are guaranteed a safety net by the metropolitan power, while are granted enough freedom to protect their national identity, local culture, and general exercise of local power.7 With the dismantlement of the Netherlands Antilles, it was 1 Gert Oostindie, “Dependency and autonomy in sub-national island jurisdictions: The Case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.” The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs 95, no. 386 (2006): 610. 2 Ibid., 610. 3 Ibid., 610. 4 Ibid., 611. 5 Paul Sutton, “Non-independent Territories and Small States: Retrospect and Prospect” in Governance in the Non-Independent Caribbean: Challenges and Opportunities in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Peter Clegg and Emilio Pantojas-Garcia (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers, 2009), xxxviii. 6 Oostindie, Dependence and Autonomy in the Kingdom, 611. 7 Godfrey Baldacchino and David Milne, “Success Without Sovereignty: Exploring 143 CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 not a matter of independence from the Netherlands. Rather it was about securing more autonomous advantages while retaining their relationship with the metropolis. The historical relationship between the Dutch Caribbean and the Kingdom of the Netherlands indicated the Dutch’s neglect for their ‘other’ colonies in the Atlantic. Like several other European empires, the presence of the Netherlands in the Caribbean dates back to age of colonial expansion in the seventeenth century. While the Dutch acquired six islands in the Atlantic, most of their colonial efforts were devoted towards the Pacific. The West Indies did not appear on the Netherlands’ agenda again until World War II. In her famous radio broadcast in 1942, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands announced that after the war, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would pursue a new course. The Queen spoke of ‘complete partnership’ with and autonomy for the overseas territories. The Queen envisaged solidarity with the overseas territories in which the Dutch government would assist with internal affairs.8 This proclamation was a consequence of the growing nationalism in the Dutch East Indies, as well as pressure by the U.S. and England to impose a new approach to colonialism.9 The proposal was too late, however, because nationalists in Indonesia declared their independence after the end the war in 1945.10 The East Indies was considered a crucial extension to the economy of the Netherlands. The loss of their prized colony in the Pacific suggested that the Dutch were losing their foothold as an empire. Despite their military intervention, however, the Dutch failed to reclaim Indonesia. In 1949, under pressure from the Indonesian independence movement and United States, the Dutch were forced to accept the transfer of sovereignty to the independent Republic of Indonesia.11 Traumatized by a violent decolonization, the Dutch were willing to grant more autonomy for their territories in the West. Sub-National Island Jurisdictions.” The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs 95, no. 386 (2006): 490. 8 Harold Mitchell, Europe in the Caribbean: The Policies of Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands towards their West Indian Territories in the Twentieth Century (Great Britain: University of Edinburgh, 1963), 39. 9 Gert Oostindie and Inge Klinkers, Decolonising the Caribbean: Dutch Policies in a Comparative Perspective (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003), 66. 10 Ibid., 66. 11 Ibid., 67. 144 CAMERON WATHEY| THE DISMANTLEMENT OF NETHERLANDS ANTILLES The failure of the Netherlands to reclaim Indonesia benefitted the decolonization of the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam. In an effort to improve their international image after the catastrophic decolonization of Indonesia, the Netherlands were willing to agree to negotiations with the Dutch Caribbean islands. The Caribbean islands had high hopes to acquire the autonomous privileges that were promised by the Kingdom during wartime. The overseas territories did not desire independence, but rather hoped to achieve autonomy while preserving a platonic relationship with the Kingdom.12 As for the Netherlands, integrating the colonies into overseas provinces, after the example of the overseas departments of France, was not an option because the Netherlands did not wish to involve the overseas territories in metropolitan affairs.13 The result of their round table conferences was the Statuut or the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1954. The Kingdom of the Netherlands was composed of three equal partners: the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, and Suriname. The Netherlands Antilles and Surinam achieved their goal for autonomy with the Charter. The Charter was designed to grant Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles the rights to self-government while also remain part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.14 The Charter defined foreign affairs, defense, citizenship, and safeguarding proper governmental administration as matters of interest that would be governed by the Kingdom.15 With final authority over these affairs, the Netherlands believed that they were ensuring good governance and fundamental human rights in the Netherlands